A new study published yesterday suggests that the practice of feeding bees high-fructose corn syrup may be a key factor in CCD: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-high-fructose-corn-syrup-tied-worldwide.html The authors claim that by substituting HFCS for honey that the bees receive much lower levels of natural enzymes found in pollen and honey that aid in developing bees immune systems.

NP

Logged

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." —Franklin D. Roosevelt

that can't be it because the EU just solved it all by banning certain pesticides.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

If that's the case why aren't Australian bees suffering from "CCD?" Australians have HFCS but no CCD. Australians have the now EU banned pesticides but no "CCD" What don't the Australians have? Varroa mites...

If that's the case why aren't Australian bees suffering from "CCD?" Australians have HFCS but no CCD. Australians have the now EU banned pesticides but no "CCD" What don't the Australians have? Varroa mites...

I don't post often, but I think I'll stir the syrup. If you read the abstract, it seems to make sense. It does not say that HFCS is toxic. It says that some components of pollen and poplar sap contain components which activate the bee immune system. HFCS does not have the components and may contribute to bees being more vulnerable to the environmental stresses.

As for "guilty until proven innocent," I don't have any problem with that concept in testing and marketing of food additives, prescription drugs, consumer goods, and pesticides. One of the things our government has done a reasonably good job of in the past was making our food chain and medicines relatively safe or at least evaluating the risk vs. reward of products. Big business and big money seem to be determined to short cut the processes. A little slower to the profits with a little more testing would not hurt my feelings.

Imagine how are you going to feel when what you do for a living comes under attack and "Guilty until proven innocent" is invoked?

Honey that Jacobs is currently producing is claimed to cause male pattern baldness by some groups who want it banned! Can you prove it doesn't? Your findings would be considered biased. Others findings that support you could be claimed as being biased as well. The only studies that those who believe your honey causes baldness would believe are the ones that support the baldness claim. Those studies can't be replicated (because they are junk, your honey doesn't cause baldness) but they are still touted.

The point I am making is they passed all of the governmental requirements. Now, with unreplicated "science" and innuendos they are having their product yanked from the shelves. Longer testing, for what? Nothing has been proven that is acceptable in a court of law. If it was there would be a serious class action lawsuit.

I have had a growing suspicion in recent years that the push to "feed" bees in the fall so we can take more honey off for ourselves is a bad practice. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the sugar syrup or HFCS is not as good for the girls as what nature provides for them, i.e. nectar and pollen with their rich variety of components. Then add in all the chemicals and "essential" oils we put into hives to fight varroa, AFB, etc. and we are weakening their immune systems, IMHO. Hello? Perfect storm gathering here.

I know there are times of severe dearth or a new package, etc. when bees need a helping hand to get through a rough patch, but this should be the exception and not the rule. Even then it is better to have set some frames of honey/pollen back for future emergencies rather than rely on syrup or HFCS . Of course this is easier for a hobbyist to do than a sideliner or commercial keeper with lots of hives. But I am afraid we are raising a generation of bkps who think the answer to everything is to feed, feed, feed (with lots of additives, of course) rather than to let the girls rely on the fruits of their own labor which has been the natural way for thousands if not millions of years.

I don't post often, but I think I'll stir the syrup. If you read the abstract, it seems to make sense. It does not say that HFCS is toxic. It says that some components of pollen and poplar sap contain components which activate the bee immune system. HFCS does not have the components and may contribute to bees being more vulnerable to the environmental stresses.

The abstract also insinuates that commercial operations are stripping all honey and substituting HFCS instead. Im hear to tell ya all commercial operators I know feed HFCS in the early spring to prep for almonds or early build up for colonies.How long does poplars bloom for? Is the assumption also that we commercial guys keep bees from bringing pollen in the hive?It seems like a fairly ridiculous study. There are components of HFCS that is unhealthy for bees which shortens their lives. However with only a few feedings of HFCS you will only have HFCS bees for about 1 brood cycle. The rest will be from the natural nectar, etc... So lets say each colony was given 2 gallons of HFCS in Jan before going to almonds. They spend 8 weeks in Ca bringing in pollen and nectar from the almonds. Then they come back get split and fed 2 more times with HFCS, all the while bringing in natural forage. Is HFCS really a major issue?